I was listening to an old podcast of Seth's and the author Peter Boghossian was on and mentioned his book. I really dislike the title but I was curious about the book. I'm only on Chapter 4 but I'm not too sure about this book.
Has anyone else read this? Was it worth reading?

(27-01-2014 09:36 PM)Noelani Wrote: I was listening to an old podcast of Seth's and the author Peter Boghossian was on and mentioned his book. I really dislike the title but I was curious about the book. I'm only on Chapter 4 but I'm not too sure about this book.
Has anyone else read this? Was it worth reading?

I sure hope this manual deosn't involve clay, and ribs, and talking snakes. I'm getting tired of people claiming that shit is in some kind of manual.

(27-01-2014 09:36 PM)Noelani Wrote: I was listening to an old podcast of Seth's and the author Peter Boghossian was on and mentioned his book. I really dislike the title but I was curious about the book. I'm only on Chapter 4 but I'm not too sure about this book.
Has anyone else read this? Was it worth reading?

I sure hope this manual deosn't involve clay, and ribs, and talking snakes. I'm getting tired of people claiming that shit is in some kind of manual.

Clay? That's the Koran. I think you mean dirt.
Oh, but don't forget the talking donkeys or else Balaam will be talking to himself and he'll look a little crazy.

3. Theists from highly intellectual traditions - some of these systems can be highly advanced and have a large volume of literature which just calling them blind epistemologists is a ridiculous oversimplification. (eg Jews familiar with guide the perplexed by Maimonides & huge depth of Talmudic debates or muslims engaging in rigorous style of Al Ghazali & some of the medieval philosophers. Whilst ultimately these religious theologies may be incorrect you need a MUCH more robust approach than accusing them of blind faith belief !!!